Unlimited unsupported engineers and settlers

[myermian]

So... I started a game and ran into the English really early. Normally I just destroy them so I can have free roam on my continent. But, I thought of trying something a bit different this time around...

I built a ton of units and took them down to one city locked inland. I surrounded the city with fortified units so they cannot escape beyond a 4x4 grid. I make peace with them and send them as money hoping they build settlers. Then, I take my diplomats and bribe them to me!

I now have an army of 20 settlers that have no support and I'm almost done building Leonardo's w/ Explosives! 20 free engineers should be nice

I think this could easily be worked in with multiplayer team games as well. Just build a city nearby your teammates capital each of you, then send each other any settlers you want to convert for free to your friend who will put them all in that nearby city. Then you simply bribe them all.

Oh, and this is just like having any other unit in that it gets supported by the nearest city (which if it's an enemy city then you get the NONE).

Sorry if this was already stated, I just found it really cool. Oh, and this works with military units too since you can gift those... you just gotta hope they send them out into the field, which they usually do.

 

[Peaster]

Welcome to CFC !

Just wondering how much you had to pay in bribes for the NONE-settlers. As I recall, Civ 2 makes you pay more for settlers than for most other units.

Interesting ideas for multiplayer games. In one PBEM game that I played, there were rules against these tricks [and they were needed because at least one player was known to be very sneaky]. But your ideas would probably work in most games. I think bribery money in multiplayer just disappears, as it does in single player, so you'd still have to consider the costs.

 

[myermian]

Welcome to CFC !

Just wondering how much you had to pay in bribes for the NONE-settlers. As I recall, Civ 2 makes you pay more for settlers than for most other units.

Interesting ideas for multiplayer games. In one PBEM game that I played, there were rules against these tricks [and they were needed because at least one player was known to be very sneaky]. But your ideas would probably work in most games. I think bribery money in multiplayer just disappears, as it does in single player, so you'd still have to consider the costs.

It did cost quite a bit ... If I tried to get them right next to their capital it would cost around 1000 gold. If they made it to the edge of the "lockdown border" it would go down to 500 gold or so. I didn't mind spending the money because it was worth it in the long haul. I kept the cost down by demanding tributes every so often. Ideally I think it would be better if I could get a civ down to 2 distant cities (both locked down and seperated) so that the costs are severely lowered.

But yea, in a multiplayer game it would be much much cheaper if your partner's giveaway city was really far from the capital.

 

[Prof. Garfield]

I strongly doubt that paying 500 - 1000 gold for a NON settler is a good deal. You save 2 food and 1 shield per turn (at most) and, maybe, a citizen. Unless you have a very high valuation of food and shields (like a one city challenge), bribing at those prices diverts your gold away from more profitable employments.

 

[timtofly]

I have played GOTM 108 way longer than I should be playing it. I am up to over 200,000 gold in my treasury, and I am paying 10,000 every 4th turn when a "pet" city puts one out. I bring in about 12,000 each turn through vans and the treasury. I have about 40 none Engineers.

 

[Ali Ardavan]

Prof. Garfield's point comes up often in deciding tactical action in Civ2. Is this worth it? In general how do you compare two alternative actions in Civ2?

Timtofly has an appropriate answer for his particular case. Often in Fundy you have more money than you can spend and None Engineers are a great way to spend money.

The best method I have seen put forward for such analysis is by Peaster, our GOTM Hall of fame champion, and a mathematician in real life.

To compare two actions you calculate their rate of return per turn and take the higher rate. To decide on one action you compare its rate of return and compare it with typical rate of return in civ2 actions which are collective analysis has shown is mostly below 5%. In general if you get 4% and above it is a worth while action. 2% to 4% is OK. Below 2% is dubious at best.

There are 3 essential commodities in Civ2, arrows, food, and shields. To be able to make uniform comparisons you have to come up with systems for transforming these into one another. In early game, I use 1 food=1 shield, and 1 shield=2 arrows. My reasoning is that I can typically switch a citizen from shielded grassland to a forest thus trading 1 food for 1 shield. Rush buying, which is what we use money for, costs 2 coins per shield for structures and 2-2.5 for units (4 for wonders, but in early game you cannot afford spending money on wonders). In absence of marketplaces (and Banks, ...) each arrow gets you one coin. These equivalences are rough and particular game circumstances affect many aspects of these analyses.

Just as an example, let me analyze the rate of return on a none settler in early game: you save 1 food, 0-1 shields, and 1 citizen in early game. A citizen can typically work on a shielded grass or forest returning 3 foods/shields (with nonworked specials around this easily goes up to 5). This translates to 2+(0-2)+(6+) coins or 8-10+ coins. If we go with 10 coins, up to 200 is a bargain, up to 500 is worthwhile, beyond that questionable.

In late game of course, food is 2 per settler, arrows are worth a lot more than a coin, .... The essence of the analysis, however, remains the same.

 

[rrhal]

Beat up the other civ and take away their capital. Rip up all the improvements in the cities you let them keep. Then set up the perimeter and the bribing will be much cheaper (assuming they never get enough gold to build a new palace).

 

[Peaster]

I was trying to be nice to our new CFC member, but I must agree that 500g is usually too much. In most of my games I do an analysis [similar the one in Ali's post] and figure that a Settler is worth about 200g, for the food and shields it costs to build it, and also for the benefits it can provide. But the benefits are a little bigger than the costs, so it is generally a good idea to build settlers, which pretty much explains ICS.

I usually ignore the support costs, since most of my settlers found new cities quickly. Occasionally, I use a Settler to build a road/etc instead, but in that case I figure that the extra support costs are outweighed by the benefits of the Settler's work [if not, it shouldn't be building that road in the first place]. Very rough estimate: a NON Settler might be worth an extra 50 gold, assuming it has worthwhile tasks to perform, as opposed to simply founding another city.

Most of my calculations are for the early game in Monarchy, aiming for conquest, but AFAIK the conclusions apply pretty well to most other settings.

 

[WildPony]

500-1000 gold and the cost of a diplomat could rush 5-10 supported settlers from our own cities. 5-10 supported settlers are a lot more valuable than 1 unsupported settler especially in ICS, but also as workers... and if you rush the 5-10 settlers in cities sized 4 and above in Republic or Democracy (assuming a food surplus), you can celebrate the cities right back to their former size to further minimize the costs.

 

[Magic_gorter]

500-1000 gold and the cost of a diplomat could rush 5-10 supported settlers from our own cities. 5-10 supported settlers are a lot more valuable than 1 unsupported settler especially in ICS, but also as workers... and if you rush the 5-10 settlers in cities sized 4 and above in Republic or Democracy (assuming a food surplus), you can celebrate the cities right back to their former size to further minimize the costs.

I completly agree. When celebrating it's a powerfull strategy. A long time ago somebody (IIRC Banach) said it is perhaps better to use 3 settlers for 1 city (= citysize 3) so it's celebrating at once. I never tried it but perhaps it's even a better way to grow faster.

 

[WildPony]

I completly agree. When celebrating it's a powerfull strategy. A long time ago somebody (IIRC Banach) said it is perhaps better to use 3 settlers for 1 city (= citysize 3) so it's celebrating at once. I never tried it but perhaps it's even a better way to grow faster.

Hey there Magic,

One of my basic strategies once the game reaches a certain point is to build settlers only or predominately in cities that can immediately celebrate and regain the size, allowing the size 1s and 2s to reach size 3 and celebrate before building settlers there. I have actually added settlers to certain low food cities, especially going from size 2 to size 3 since it is a longer climb, and more rarely from size 1 to 2, but in the vast majority of instances i believe the settler is better utilized building another city or roading towards new cities... or even irrigating once the time comes for that since irrigated land allows cities to celebrate larger. This is a good one for Peaster, Ali and Professor Garfield to analyze mathematically .

At some point high trade cities are generally designated as trade caravan builders, low trade/high food cities are designated as settler builders and many low food/low trade cities are designated either for vet military (barracks) or misc units like dips, explorers or wonder caravans. And everything is rushed with lots of Trade dollars and a zero science rate while generally trading for a tech per turn.

ps: forgive me but what is IIRC? I have seen it a few times now and haven't been able to figure it out through the context.

 

[Peaster]

A long time ago somebody (IIRC Banach) said it is perhaps better to use 3 settlers for 1 city (= citysize 3) so it's celebrating at once. I never tried it but perhaps it's even a better way to grow faster.

It means "If I recall correctly".

Banach may have said it first (dunno), but this is an idea I've toyed with for a long time, and tried in various forms. One problem is organizing it, so that 3 settlers or engineers are available at approx the same time and place. Another is that you need lots of gold to do it on a large scale. When I have that much gold, I am usually RBing everything in sight, especially vans. I tend to run out of unblocked supply, and other reasonable ways to invest my gold. Then, 3 size one cities seem more useful than one celebrating city, so I tend to make those instead.

It seems good in theory, but I just don't use it often. I've done it mainly near the end of a game, such as a GOTM, to put together more points quickly.

 

[Duckboy7]

pretty easy to get unsupported settler/engineers
just make a city thats closer to a computer's city and before the city gets to size 2, just buy the settler.